Two Thai businessmen, Nutthawat Rukthammachalern and Natthawat Kasamvilas, have filed a lawsuit against stablecoin issuer Tether over the alleged seizure of $42.4 million worth of USDT.

 

The lawsuit, which was filed by the plaintiffs this week in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenges the seizure of the crypto funds by the stablecoin issuer, alleging that it was carried out without proper legal backing.

 

According to the suit filed with the court, the plaintiffs claim that the seizure involved funds held across 10 Ethereum addresses that were blacklisted by Tether. They allege that the blacklist was created solely based on an informal request from a U.S. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agent and without a warrant, court order, or other formal legal process.

 

 

Defending how the funds were obtained, the plaintiffs claimed that the frozen USDT assets were acquired through secondary market business transactions that had no direct relationship with Tether whatsoever.

 

Post-seizure Recovery Efforts

 

After discovering that Tether had frozen the funds October last year, one of the plaintiffs, Natthawat Kasamvilas, emailed the stablecoin issuer to inquire why he could no longer control the funds and asked to regain full custody of them.

 

However, Kasamvilas claimed that Tether replied by asking him to contact a special agent with Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), whose email address the company provided, while failing to provide a legal basis for the freeze.

 

Although earlier this year, in February, a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of North Carolina ordered the seizure of $61 million worth of USDT that was reportedly linked to a pig butchering and money laundering scam, the plaintiffs claim that the seizure of their funds occurred months before the judge issued the order. They also allege that Tether continued to earn yield from the frozen assets.

 

 

Uniswap Labs has secured a decisive courtroom victory that could ripple across decentralized finance for years.

 

On March 2, a federal judge in New York dismissed, with prejudice, a long-running class action lawsuit accusing the company of facilitating crypto rug pulls on its decentralized exchange. The ruling closes the door on a case first filed in 2022 and underscores a principle that courts are becoming increasingly comfortable with: writing open-source software is not the same as committing securities fraud.

 

 

The Lawsuit That Would Not Go Away

The case began in April 2022, when a group of investors led by Nessa Risley sued Uniswap Labs, founder Hayden Adams, and several high-profile venture capital backers. The plaintiffs alleged that scam tokens traded on Uniswap had caused substantial losses and argued that the protocol’s creators should bear responsibility.

 

At its core, the lawsuit tried to stretch traditional securities law into a decentralized environment. The argument was relatively straightforward. If fraudulent tokens were being created and traded on Uniswap, and if Uniswap’s infrastructure made that trading possible, then perhaps the developers and investors behind the protocol were on the hook.

 

The problem for the plaintiffs was always going to be causation and knowledge.

 

But Uniswap is a permissionless protocol built on Ethereum. Anyone can deploy a token. Anyone can create a liquidity pool. Smart contracts execute swaps automatically. There is no listing committee. No approval process. No centralized trading desk.

 

Over the past four years, the case wound through motions to dismiss, amendments to complaints, and an appeal to the Second Circuit. Federal securities claims were largely thrown out earlier in the process. What remained were state law claims, including allegations that Uniswap had aided and abetted fraudulent conduct.

 

This week, those claims fell too. Manhattan federal judge Katherin Polk Failla dismissed the suit with prejudice on Monday.

 

Why the Court Said No

Judge Katherine Polk Failla dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot bring the same claims again.

 

The reasoning was technical but important. To establish aiding and abetting liability, plaintiffs generally must show that a defendant had actual knowledge of wrongdoing and substantially assisted it. The court found that the complaint failed on both fronts.

 

There were no plausible allegations that Uniswap Labs knew about specific rug pulls before they happened. Nor was there evidence that the company took affirmative steps to advance fraudulent schemes. Providing a neutral, automated protocol that others can use, even if some use it badly, was not enough.

 

The court drew comparisons to other neutral infrastructure. Payment networks process transactions that later turn out to be illicit. Messaging apps are used for scams. Internet service providers transmit fraudulent communications. Yet courts have historically hesitated to hold those intermediaries liable absent clear knowledge and participation.

 

The same logic, at least here, applied to DeFi.

 

The dismissal with prejudice sends a strong signal. 

 

 

A Win for Protocol Neutrality

Uniswap founder Hayden Adams described the outcome as sensible. Company lawyers called it precedent-setting. That may not be an exaggeration.

 

The Second Circuit had already affirmed dismissal of the core securities claims last year, reinforcing the notion that decentralized trading protocols are not automatically securities exchanges under existing law. This final ruling on the remaining state claims sharpens the boundary further.

 

Developers who publish autonomous smart contracts are not, by default, guarantors of every token that trades through them.

 

If courts had ruled the other way, it would have opened the door to expansive liability for developers across DeFi. Automated market makers, lending protocols, even wallet providers could have found themselves exposed whenever bad actors exploited open systems.

 

Instead, the judiciary appears to be drawing a line between building infrastructure and orchestrating fraud.

 

 

Venture Capital Backers Breathe Easier

The case also named major venture capital firms that invested in Uniswap Labs. While those firms were not accused of directly launching scam tokens, plaintiffs argued that by funding and promoting the protocol, they shared responsibility.

 

Those claims have now effectively collapsed alongside the broader case.

 

For crypto VCs, the ruling reduces a specific litigation risk. Investing in a protocol that later hosts fraudulent activity does not automatically translate into liability, at least under the theories tested here.

 

Still, risk has not disappeared. Regulators continue to scrutinize token listings, governance structures, and revenue models. And courts have not issued a blanket immunity for DeFi projects.

 

What this case does suggest is that stretching traditional intermediary liability to decentralized software will be an uphill battle.

 

 

A Move in the Right Direction

The broader regulatory environment for crypto remains unsettled. Lawmakers are still debating market structure legislation. Agencies continue to spar over jurisdiction. Courts are gradually filling in gaps.

 

Uniswap’s victory does not settle whether certain tokens are securities. It does not resolve how decentralized autonomous organizations should be treated under U.S. law. And it certainly does not eliminate fraud in DeFi.

 

But it does clarify one thing.

 

Writing code that others misuse is not, without more, a securities violation.

 

For an industry that has spent years arguing that decentralized protocols are more like public infrastructure than traditional financial institutions, this ruling is validation. It also places pressure back where many judges seem to believe it belongs, on the individuals who design and execute scams.

 

As DeFi matures, that distinction between neutral tools and active misconduct will likely remain central. The Uniswap case may not be the final word, but it is an important chapter in defining how far platform liability extends in crypto’s open markets.